|
finishing output translating stream
Shiro Kawai
(25 May 2005 00:05 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Michael Sperber
(06 Jun 2005 15:15 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Shiro Kawai
(07 Jun 2005 10:41 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
bear
(07 Jun 2005 16:12 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream Michael Sperber (08 Jun 2005 07:19 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Shiro Kawai
(08 Jun 2005 07:37 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Michael Sperber
(08 Jun 2005 07:52 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Shiro Kawai
(08 Jun 2005 09:08 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Shiro Kawai
(08 Jun 2005 09:10 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
bear
(08 Jun 2005 18:10 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
bear
(09 Jun 2005 02:16 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Michael Sperber
(09 Jun 2005 05:51 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Shiro Kawai
(21 Jun 2005 00:00 UTC)
|
|
Re: finishing output translating stream
Michael Sperber
(22 Jun 2005 07:56 UTC)
|
Re: finishing output translating stream Michael Sperber 08 Jun 2005 07:19 UTC
bear <xxxxxx@sonic.net> writes: > On Tue, 7 Jun 2005, Shiro Kawai wrote: > >>From: Michael Sperber <xxxxxx@informatik.uni-tuebingen.de> >>Subject: Re: finishing output translating stream >>Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2005 17:15:57 +0200 >> >>last few characters might be sitting in the character conversion >>buffer. >> >>But I might be able to achieve it by creating and closing a >>stream each time I want a complete "packet". Though it >>seems to me lots of overhead, it may be doable. > > The rational alternative is, of course, an explicit flush-stream > call. Indeed, but the SRFI already has this (FLUSH-OUTPUT-STREAM), which is why I'm confused. -- Cheers =8-} Mike Friede, Völkerverständigung und überhaupt blabla